DCFC Kicks

8 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Because, as was proven in the Euros, Poland are also rubbish. 

That's just not true. Ranked 21 in the world rankings. Just to qualify for the EURO's your have to be of a certain standard. Poland won their qualifying group. They also drew 1-1 with Spain.

I honestly don't get the appeal of supporting a team like Man City. Even if I was an old time Man City fan I'd stop because the clubs been ruined. They're just a big characterless, boring nothing. Where everything they do is meaningless and you're a customer instead of a fan. The only worse thing than Derby dying would be them turning into another Man City.

I used to watch a bit of the Premier League but the ever increasing effect money has on it has reached a point where I've just lost all interested, and it's starting to ruin the Championship as well. If it wasn't for Fantasy Football I wouldn't even acknowledge it. I've always wanted Derby to get promoted, but if they ever got up and became an established PL team I'd fear it would get boring. 

I think something like the European Super League could be good for the rest of football in a way. It could act as a magnet for all the greed and commercialisation, as well as the casual global audience that have inadvertently caused a lot of harm to English football. It could allow the rest of the teams to go back to something like it once was.

Davies, Jagielka and Stearman in a back 3 in the Championship.

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

linking Marshall to Wigan really.  I don't think there are many conclusions to be drawn from the performances to criticise or support WR but really, it can't be much fun for any of them.  By the time WR took over Leeds were so far ahead of us after bashing us at home under Cocu.  We will never know but even the great Bielsa would have a job making a silk purse out of the current squad.

This ludicrous position lies in the hands of one man and it isn't WR

I honestly think Bielsa could get this lot mid table at least. 

Yes this lies in Mel's hands. This squad is bad but not as bad as they're performing. As I keep saying... 1 win in 20!

1 hour ago, TuffLuff said:

I mean, bless ya for thinking we’ve got a championship squad.

Almost all of our starting 11 have been playing in the Championship the last two seasons at least. The problem is the squad depth.

Our squad is bad but not as bad as some on here are saying. It's certainly better than 1 win in 20.

56 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

Of course it meant winning as many games as possible and challenging of promotion. But that was all they wanted, because although is appointment was inevitable, they couldn't possibly entertain taking him on when he has no experience whatsoever. But if we had got promoted, what would he have looked like by jumping ship immediately? Getting promoted and then going to Chelsea would look bad for both Frank and Chelsea. That is why he kept the two strikers who were on fire for us on the bench until it was too late to save the play-off  game, but started the match with two strikers who couldn't hit a barn door with an entire country music festival of banjos.

If he has stayed, we would most likely have kept at least some of the loanees, especially the Chelsea ones, we would have been able to recruit properly, and had a full pre-season of training, and continuity of style of play. Remember, Cocu's playing style was totally different, so he even had to put them to sleep before he could work on tactics. There is a fair chance we would have had a much better season, maybe even challenging for promotion again.

Being angry at Lampard for leaving is one thing, which I understand, but to suggest he intentionally lost the play-off final is totally far-fetched. Do you have any proof? How would it be possibly to have that much control over a league as unpredictable as the Championship?

I agree that if he had stayed we would be in a better position but there was no way we would have been able to re-sign Mount and Tomori, they were too good. 

18 minutes ago, Spanish said:

only part of the story and management only influence to a degree.  Perhaps Byrne is dreading another Wigan experience or is upset how Marshall is being treated.  There maybe off the field problems that are affecting him.  Joz unhappy being here, homesick, wishing he had never come because this environment was not what he was told.  Just the standard of players we are reduced to having may be prone to more mistakes.

There is not much to show that WR is making a positive difference but I can see that he has been given a mountain to climb

I think you're underplaying the importance of a manager. Look what Leeds's manager did with a bunch of Championship players. When it's 1 or 2 players who aren't quite right you could put it down to the individuals issues, but if it's pretty much the whole squad you have to question other things. 

Also I could be wrong but I don't think Byrne and Marshall are that close for it to be affecting Byrne's performance.

3 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

I never said that there was anything wrong with Lampard wanting to manage Chelsea. We all knew he would eventually be on his bike after finding his feet here, but Mel was sold the lie that it would be in 2 or 3 years. But the real intention was to chuck him in at Derby, make him look good and move him on quickly.

Neither was it Lampard's fault that the three loanees left an unbridgeable gulf when they left - they were part of the whole setup to make him look good. Unless of course he engineered the hole scheme for himself. I suspect Chelsea had rather a lot to do with it. 

What is Lampard's fault is keeping us dangling on a thin piece of cotton all the way through summer so that we could do very little preparation - remember, Cocu only arrived to start his job when the squad were already on their pre-season tour, with no signings made. So poor Philip couldn't go looking for player he wanted, and ended up being forced people to which all he could say is "OK. you'll do. If I must". It certainly wasn't our choice to not replace them, we couldn't because of Frank Lampard's behaviour.  IF he had any decency he could have pulled some strings behind the scenes to offer one or two of the 3.5 million apprentices Chelsea had on their books at the time.

It was a disgraceful situation which could have been avoided if Frank had simply told us in time what had clearly been set up for months, more likely an entire season.

I agree that Lampard's delaying in the summer harmed us. But the fact we couldn't sign any players harmed us much more.

How was Mel sold a lie? Lampard probably also thought he'd be here a few seasons. Who could have for foreseen Chelsea's embargo? The charges against Chelsea only came out after Lampard's Derby appointment, so how could it have been part of a plan? There's no way Chelsea would have hired him if they weren't under embargo.

I don't understand your whole "make him look good" theory. Wouldn't him looking good mean winning as many games as possible and challenging for promotion? What's wrong with that?

Why would Chelsea only be interested in making him "look good"? If they wanted him as manager there's no use in him only looking good, he'd have to actually BE good.

So he brought in the best loans he could, to win as many games as he could and look as good of a manager as he could. Isn't that what all mangers do all the the time?

If Lampard had happened to stay for the 19/20 season, all the problems with the EFL and FFP would still be exactly the same. It had nothing to do with Lampard personally.

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

It’s Lampards fault he signed poor players like Joz and Holmes and Waghorn and Marriott and Malone. 
 

He had 3 top class loans which we couldn’t replace and then he left us. 
 

Actually Waghorn wasn’t that bad he saved us from relegation last season so I’m indebted to him 

So Mel and our entire recruitment team weren't involved in which players we signed? it was just 100% Lampard? I'd say the more likely scenario for example would have been: he said he wanted and new LB, and the club came back with Malone. (he didn't sign Jozwiak, who I also don't think is poor)

It would have been impossible to replace those loans anyway in any scenario, they were that good. We were lucky they were here at all.

Just now, Curtains said:

How could you replace them 

We didn’t have the money and FFP was a problem.

 

Exactly. My point was how is it Lampard's fault we didn't replace his loans?

7 minutes ago, falconram said:

Not good is what I know, can't say anymore, MM gambled again and unfortunately it didn't pay off. 5m Waghorn, 3m Marriott, 2.5m Zoon, Malone unsure plus loanees, a lot has gone out with no return, we could be in a mess for a few more seasons

We sold Vydra for £10m. We had a net spend of around £0 that season, and that doesn't even include the fee Chelsea paid us for Lampard. 

13 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

I would think the Frank Lampard tenure was the turning point that ended up up putting us where we are. 
 

He was always going to manage Chelsea, but no way could they employ a complete rookie. So some high level fixers hawked him around a few clubs to get him a “leg up”, and is how we were able to get the three loan players who made our team, and left it completely characterless when they moved on.

I don’t blame Mel going for it, but he was stitched up thinking he had 2 or 3 years of Frank. The whole thing was to make Frank look good, and it worked.

Sat at Wembley looking at the starting team told any fans with any nous that Chelsea were getting their man. They might as well have put “Bye. Been nice knowing you. Love from Frank” on the screens.

And if you’re not convinced, watch the video of Frank after he had “briefly” consoled the players. He wandered around circling the melee of players with a look on his face that said no matter much of a Chelsea hero he might be he wouldn’t get this sort on interaction with the fans again.

And then there was the summer of “Will he or won’t he”. Not “go”, but actually tell us he is leaving so we have got a chance to sort our next season out.

His keeping us dangling wrecked our preparations, and therefore our entire season, from which we never recovered.

Being subsequently forced to play Rooney when he was nearly as past it as me didn’t help, but the whole Lampard episode did huge damage. Mel’s only mistake was being used as the “Patsie”.

When Frank arrived he created the impression of being a man of integrity. Now I don’t which of his two faces I dislike the most.

Question: when he arrived, what state were we in financially?

The EFL charges were always round the corner no matter who was in charge during the 18/19 season.

Yes of course Lampard always wanted to manage Chelsea, what's wrong with that? When he signed for Derby Chelsea weren't under an embargo, so how could he have "stitched Mel up" this way? The embargo was the only reason they went for Lampard, there's no way he thought he'd manage Chelsea after one season in management.

I agree his delaying in the summer about leaving wasn't good.

How is it Lampard's fault the 3 loans left a void the following season when he wasn't even here. It was our choice not to replace them. 

9 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

jozwiak, because he is rubbish. 

If Jozwiak is so rubbish, why did Poland play him at the EUROs ahead of players playing in Serie A, La Liga and the Bundesliga?

2-0 loss

9 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

If your number for sales includes the 10m for vydra, then from what we've learnt of our amortisation methods, we probably made very little accounting profit as we hadn't written down his value much. 

In fact, I wonder if all our creative accounting was aimed at freeing up budget for a last frankie roll of the dice. 

Wembley 2019 was when the rot really started as we realised not only had we failed again, we were stuck with all of Frank's dross..... ?

It wasn't Frank's fault personally, whoever happened to be manager during the 18/19 season was going to be the last roll of the dice. But that was Mel's gamble and his fault it ended up that way. But if it was Mel's last roll of the dice then Lampard made a pretty good go of it and it almost worked.

Why is it Frank's dross? It's more our recruitment team. 

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Lampard didn’t cost us? Can you tell me how much we got for selling Waghorn, Marriott, Malone and Jozefzoon. Can you tell me how much we spent on loan fees and wages for one year developing Mount, Tomori and Wilson for Chelsea and Liverpool blocking pathways for our own youngsters. Not that it was all his fault as someone was signing the cheques (not that Mel accepts any blame for his largesse).

Lampard didn't force us to buy those players. Managers don't get 100% say of which players we sign, that's our recruitment teams fault. The only loan fee we paid for was Wilson which was £2m. He also improved Bogle who we went on to sell. Besides, we got within one game of getting £170m+ so it wasn't like it was all pointless. 

37 minutes ago, Curtains said:

If you think Lampard was a success fine .

I think he ultimately failed and cost us or might I say DCFC a lot of money 

Lampard didn't cost us. What's happened to us was always going to happen, Lampard's season just happened to be the last one before it. I think we spent around £13m on players that season but also sold £13m worth anyway. 

5 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I just don’t know how he can be judged. .

The players like Rooney and Rosenior and the team is full of inexperienced Academy players due to circumstances like Stretton  etc. 

Morrison played great yesterday but inexplicably Byrne had a nightmare and we lost CKR .

Rooney and Rosenior can’t influence things off the fields either. .

We were 1 up on 90 minutes and were undone in 11 minutes injury time. 
 

The players are doing their best and I can’t fault their effort. 

Stretton's only just come into the team, what about the many games before then?

We were 1 up in the last minute but still lost, if you look at our stats for late goals conceded it's that terrible you can't keep putting it down to bad luck.

Yes the squad is bad, but it was/is good enough to do better than 1 win in 20 if you look at the other squads in the league. 

1 hour ago, Chris_Martin said:

 

No loan fee and they cover a (large) portion of his wages? It's not like Man City need the money, wouldn't they rather he got game time and helped his development ?

 

They don't need the £2m as actual money, they need it because it would add another £2m to the amount FFP would allow them to spend.

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I thought Mac was on Talk Sport or something the other day heaping praise on Rooney? Is he misguided? 

Well he's hardly going to go on there and berate him while he's still employed by the club is he??

I'd like to know what he really thinks deep down though. 

If it meant we could bring in another striker then it's worth it for any price unfortunately. 

2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

Rooney being rubbish doesnt justify keeping Cocu. We were bottom of the league ffs and rolling over for all comers! The new manager bounce from Rooney justified letting Cocu go instantly. 

Let's have another one!

12 hours ago, Jram said:

Only been three games

No it hasn't, it's been 1 win in the last 20.

20 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

The season that shall not be named!

30 odd games wasn’t it?

Might as well go for the record 31 then...

29 minutes ago, belperram9 said:

Where is Stevie Mac anyway? 
 

just lingering outside the coaches meeting room